What are the evolved reasons for our motivations and impulses?

[Cedars]

As we evolved, the Empathy ability in our brain was expanded to help with other motivations. As I pointed out above, evolution used an existing tool in our brain to motivate selfish life forms to cooperate (as a better means of survival and procreation), even when it seems counter intuitive from a single selfish life forms point of view.

Memory and success in the hunting/gathering enabled cooperation based motives to exist within mankind as a herd/pack. The skilled hands on successful were the ones who kept their genes in the pool. The skills needed were not only physical, but adaptive. Learning to read signs of nature. Remembering an easy success vs a struggle to hunt down a prey. Learning that fish spawn here in the spring and are easy to catch. Its not empathy, its math and logic and reasonable actions to achieve your resource. For empathy to be a tool in this is to dimminish the meaning of empathy. From wikipedia:

 

Empathy is the recognition and understanding of the states of mind, beliefs, desires, and particularly, emotions of others. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or experiencing the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself; a sort of emotional resonance.

 

The more I read up on empathy, the more I wonder if it shouldnt be tossed aside as a variation/degree of sympathy. If the only way to test for such a thing in a research setting is to cause an altruistic action, and the issue of empathy revolves around emotion (with all the variables there, and the degree of simply being wrong in that intuition) its would seem to be a side development in the structure of evolution and not a cause/effect reason.

 

If we have no legitimate test for such a thing, is it not fair to wonder if its a social phenomina rather than an evolved reason for human motivation?

 

The second one relates to how children make us feel. We bask in the reflected adoration in their eyes, pride in ourselves at what we have created, When we see the love in their eyes, it is the Empathy wiring that allows us to feel that love (and endorphins) ourselves. A completely pleasurable experience.

 

Remember that having a child is not a selfish act in and of itself.We as selfish lifeforms would NEVER have a child without something being in it for us. Empathic wiring allows for abilities built on it that can provide that "Something". (as stated above).

That depends on what culture your raised in and the effect of your own home environment on your view. China and girl babies, middle east and girl babies, africa and girl babies....All of these, including your experience (and no doubt truthful feelings) are still learned via the social aspects of your environment, not an evolutionary reason.

 

We can argue this point until we are exhausted. The behavior of people in various settings reflect that as we have more for self, we have fewer children. The reasons given by various cultures in various conditions indicate the reason we have many children is to aid self in the burdens of everyday life. The harder survival is, the increased attempted production of children. People, given a choice in comfortable conditions have fewer children. The joys some experience by the production of children is not increased by wealth of resources. Empathy is not needed to inspire production of humans, struggle is.

 

You go on to show many points relating to individuals doing crimes, enjoying them, and acting completely counter to a sympathetic person. there are 2 problems with that.

1) I am not speaking of sympathy, but rather Empathy. Something that is constantly being confused in this thread.

2) you are speaking is specifics, when the only reasonable discourse on evolution must be applied only to mankind in general. Specific instances can be found to counter absolutely anything.

 

You also point out an important aspect of Empathy, and one I have mentioned several times. We apply empathy to our enemies, but not often sympathy. At least not in a moment of battle or stress.

 

They enjoy them on the same level a hunter enjoys a successful hunt, a successful raid of a neighboring tribes food stash, a successful take over of another tribes territory and the resouces within. The base motivation is not empathy, its self. If you apply empathy as a motivation for these actions, its still about self and shows a violent impulse for that motivation. How do you apply empathy in this scenario? Remember that I do not think it is empathy, I think it is the hunt for resources for self that inspires these actions from humans.

 

Again, you speak to an individual incident. Apply it to all mankind and it falls apart. Will everyone be willing to die for anyone? Not likely. They are in a social situation, and it has it's own set of rules. They are learned, and passed on to each new member. Empathy? Perhaps, but not in the way you meant.

See above. My portion of that post was in response to your postition that empathy is involved in the evolved motivations. It is empathy that cannot be applied to all of mankind.

[Cedars]

 

This post is getting WAY to large I fear :xx:

 

Only because we both want to say alot!

 

If nothing else, I think we have both given people reading this points to ponder.

 

Well done!

 

btw, do you never sleep??

[Kayra]

Only because we both want to say alot!

 

If nothing else, I think we have both given people reading this points to ponder.

 

Well done!

 

btw, do you never sleep??

 

It took me 4 hours to firgure out how to respond :) WAY to large a post.

[Kayra]

I think this is the main point that we disagree on.

You view empathy as an emotion.

I view it as a talent and a skill.

 

Wikipedia once again. Your quote

Empathy is the recognition and understanding of the states of mind, beliefs, desires, and particularly, emotions of others. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or experiencing the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself; a sort of emotional resonance.

 

Apparently, so does Wikipedia and all other posted definitions.

 

Wikipedia

While the ability to imagine oneself as another person is a sophisticated imaginative process that only fully develops later on in life or with considerable training, the roots of this ability are probably innate.

 

Skills can be trained.

 

Wikipedia

One must be careful not to confuse empathy with either sympathy, emotional contagion or mind reading. Sympathy is the feeling of compassion for another, the wish to see them better or happier, often described as "feeling sorry" for someone.

 

Sympathy is NOT empathy.

 

You are constantly putting forth the idea that Empathy is caused by sympathy, or is an emotional subset of it. Sympathy is an emotion. Empathy is a skill. It is because of the skill that we can have that emotion. (sorry for continually repeating myself)

 

You brought up more points on learning being important for hunting and survival. I am uncertain why, as we both agree on that point and it has nothing to do with empathy nor evolved reasons for motivation. (at least not that you have shown.)

 

You are convinced that people have more or less children because simply because of a conscious decision. (either to share the workload or keep more for themselves). I say we are selfish. We want pleasure regardless of the long term outcome or result. Some countries pay a price, and some can mitigate that price.

[Cedars]

I think this is the main point that we disagree on.

You view empathy as an emotion.

I view it as a talent and a skill.

 

Wikipedia once again. Your quote

Empathy is the recognition and understanding of the states of mind, beliefs, desires, and particularly, emotions of others. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or experiencing the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself; a sort of emotional resonance.

 

Apparently, so does Wikipedia and all other posted definitions.

 

Wikipedia

While the ability to imagine oneself as another person is a sophisticated imaginative process that only fully develops later on in life or with considerable training, the roots of this ability are probably innate.

 

Skills can be trained.

 

Wikipedia

One must be careful not to confuse empathy with either sympathy, emotional contagion or mind reading. Sympathy is the feeling of compassion for another, the wish to see them better or happier, often described as "feeling sorry" for someone.

 

Sympathy is NOT empathy.

 

You are constantly putting forth the idea that Empathy is caused by sympathy, or is an emotional subset of it. Sympathy is an emotion. Empathy is a skill. It is because of the skill that we can have that emotion. (sorry for continually repeating myself)

 

You brought up more points on learning being important for hunting and survival. I am uncertain why, as we both agree on that point and it has nothing to do with empathy nor evolved reasons for motivation. (at least not that you have shown.)

 

You are convinced that people have more or less children because simply because of a conscious decision. (either to share the workload or keep more for themselves). I say we are selfish. We want pleasure regardless of the long term outcome or result. Some countries pay a price, and some can mitigate that price.

 

I guess the reason why I am having to do that is I am under the impression you have to have experience with these things to be able to put yourself into their mindset. Talent and skill, sure, but it is based on being able to experience the thoughts/emotions/desires/etc yourself to be able to project and experience empathy with another. Otherwise the skill of empathy falls under the same process as imagination. And which leaves empathy in a lurch if the person trying to use this skill has not had the thought/emotion/desire that the object is experiencing. What the person then will be left with is a miscalculation of what his/her empathy is portraying from the object (object being any other life form which is exhibiting a thought/desire/emotion to interpret). It seems to be imagination with the potential of being correct.

 

The points on hunting/gangs were in response to your assertation of empathy and how it is used from earlier posts (or my understanding of what you were trying to convey). I dont think empathy is involved as much as other, more tangible human skills and thinking are. I was trying to apply empathy as a successful tool across spectrums of human actions that were not portrayed in your examples, but are actions none the less.

 

The examples you used with children were the inspiration for my responses. The overall human behavior across the planet indicates the process of producing more children based on environment and is a selfish act based on the hunt for resources for self, rather than a result of empathy. While empathy may be a tool in keeping our children safe (if I leave the knife out toddler joe is gonna try to play with it) The whole 'what would Joe Do' aspect of child rearing. But you have to answer the question of Why is Joe here? in a human context to even be able to apply empathy later.

[Kayra]

I guess the reason why I am having to do that is I am under the impression you have to have experience with these things to be able to put yourself into their mindset. Talent and skill, sure, but it is based on being able to experience the thoughts/emotions/desires/etc yourself to be able to project and experience empathy with another. Otherwise the skill of empathy falls under the same process as imagination. And which leaves empathy in a lurch if the person trying to use this skill has not had the thought/emotion/desire that the object is experiencing. What the person then will be left with is a miscalculation of what his/her empathy is portraying from the object (object being any other life form which is exhibiting a thought/desire/emotion to interpret). It seems to be imagination with the potential of being correct.

 

Bang on. Imagination combined with empathy skill is exactly what allows you to get an idea of what is going on in someone elses head. Sympathy might result from this. Then again, so might jealousy (someone after you mate), anger (he is going to steal from me), and any other emotion. You really nailed it there.

I suspect miscalculations are common with the empathic proccess, but it is a far cry from nothing, and like any skill will improve with use.

 

The examples you used with children were the inspiration for my responses. The overall human behavior across the planet indicates the process of producing more children based on environment and is a selfish act based on the hunt for resources for self, rather than a result of empathy.

 

So we both agree that having i child is a selfish act, but for completely different reasons :) I beleive it is the simple act of seeking pleasure, and yours is as stated above (concious reasoning of the parent).

The only way to prove your point of view would be to observe a group of people within the same social and economic structure. The reason it has to be done this way is because of the influence that society, and access to technology has on the number of children we have.

The indications you see across the planet are quite ambigious, and unlikely to be useable to draw reasonable conclusions from :(

 

 

While empathy may be a tool in keeping our children safe (if I leave the knife out toddler joe is gonna try to play with it) The whole 'what would Joe Do' aspect of child rearing. But you have to answer the question of Why is Joe here? in a human context to even be able to apply empathy later.

 

Joe is hear because it is pleasureable to make love. Nature requires no other reason. While an individual might be able to override these feelings and abstain, would the population in general? No chance.

[niin]

What are the evolved reasons for our motivations and impulses?

A reason can't evolve.

There can be different reason for the same action, but the reason does not evolve from one to another.

I would refrase your (derived) statement "What are the reason for motivation and impulses" to "why do we do anything"

 

People do something, becaurse it make them "feel good".

People doesnt do something, becaurse they want to.

People do something, becaurse they have no choice.

 

I contend that even the desire to survive is based on a deeper desire to proginate and pass on our genes to our offspring.

That is what is the deepest desire. Self survival.

We don't have a desire to survive. We do stuff to "feel good".

We only survive if that which make us "feel good" also help us survive. (simple example)

We also doesn't have a desire to proginate.

 

 

What is "feel good"?

This question belongs to the subject of how emotions work.

If anyone want to debate that subject, i think we should make a new tread.

[Kayra]

A reason can't evolve.

There can be different reason for the same action, but the reason does not evolve from one to another.

I would refrase your (derived) statement "What are the reason for motivation and impulses" to "why do we do anything"

 

People do something, becaurse it make them "feel good".

People doesnt do something, becaurse they want to.

People do something, becaurse they have no choice.

 

 

 

We don't have a desire to survive. We do stuff to "feel good".

We only survive if that which make us "feel good" also help us survive. (simple example)

We also doesn't have a desire to proginate.

 

 

What is "feel good"? This is a question that belongs to the subject of how emotions work.

If anyone want to debate that subject, i think we should make a new tread.

 

 

I think you and I are in agreement. All life is selfish.. from the cellular to the complex.

 

Evolution finds ways to motivate selfish life forms to perform what appear to be altruistic acts only when there is a procreative advantage to be had.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I think you and I are in agreement. All life is selfish.. from the cellular to the complex.

 

Evolution finds ways to motivate selfish life forms to perform what appear to be altruistic acts only when there is a procreative advantage to be had.

 

Empirically false. There is no procreative advantage to rushing into a burning building to save its occupants, and yet it happens pretty often.

 

There is no procreative advantage for my dog to place himself between me and a threat, yet it has happened. (There is exceptionally no procreative advantage, since my dog cannot procreate at all. Which is my doing.)

 

There is no procreative advantage for Koko the gorilla to take care of a kitten, or for dolphins to guide ships, or for cats to bring you mice, or any of that stuff.

 

But yet... it happens.

 

You could argue that people do altruistic things because it makes them feel good, and I would find it hard to disagree, but people also do altruistic things that are inherently dangerous to them, even when it DOESN'T make them feel good. (Ever known a medical resident? Being awake for 48 hours straight is no way to feel good.)

 

So, unless you want to argue that the only reason anybody ever does anything nice for anybody else is in hopes of a future quid pro quo (and what if they die?? How about organ donors?) the statement that all acts are ultimately selfish is contravened by the available evidence.

 

Big question, why aren't we all evil bastards, all the time?

 

TFS

[Kayra]

Empirically false. There is no procreative advantage to rushing into a burning building to save its occupants, and yet it happens pretty often.

 

There is no procreative advantage for my dog to place himself between me and a threat, yet it has happened. (There is exceptionally no procreative advantage, since my dog cannot procreate at all. Which is my doing.)

 

There is no procreative advantage for Koko the gorilla to take care of a kitten, or for dolphins to guide ships, or for cats to bring you mice, or any of that stuff.

 

But yet... it happens.

 

You could argue that people do altruistic things because it makes them feel good, and I would find it hard to disagree, but people also do altruistic things that are inherently dangerous to them, even when it DOESN'T make them feel good. (Ever known a medical resident? Being awake for 48 hours straight is no way to feel good.)

 

So, unless you want to argue that the only reason anybody ever does anything nice for anybody else is in hopes of a future quid pro quo (and what if they die?? How about organ donors?) the statement that all acts are ultimately selfish is contravened by the available evidence.

 

Big question, why aren't we all evil bastards, all the time?

 

TFS

 

You speak of individual actions and reactions. Only if you can apply those actions to the vast majority can you make a case evolutionarily speaking.

Evolution also creates diversity in a population in order for immediately adaptability without the painfully slow process of evolution. I think that is what you are seeing here.

 

Note: I believe I explained almost all of your references (except perhaps for the neutered dog) in my very first post in this thread (Post #45) :)

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well, obviously, I didn't read the whole thread.

 

Okay, so went back and read the empathy exchange. You make a good case. It's a false consciousness argument Karl Marx would be proud of.

 

Like I said, it's hard to disagree with the fact that some people do good things because it makes them feel good. And it's hard to disagree with the fact that some people do good things because not doing them makes them feel guilty.

 

But, I don't know if you can attribute that as a motive to the entire human species. You say I can't talk about individual actions and reactions, but then, species do not pass on their genome, only individuals, so I don't see the point in discussing anything BUT individual reactions.

 

The masses are merely a collection of exceptions to the rules that apply to everyone else. :)

 

The argument is a good one, in that its unanswerable. "Would you feel bad if you did bad things?" Well, yes... "Would you feel good if you did good things?" Well, yes... "Would you do good things in spite of them making you feel bad, harming you, etc..." Well, maybe... People who deny acting well out of a feeling of guilt are just not conscious of their own feelings.

 

The argument can't be tested because it is it's own response. That's all well and good, but you can never prove or disprove it, and in the end it doesn't matter. My refusal to believe that all actions are fundamentally selfish because I can point to examples is just as valid as your belief that they are because you can refute those examples by ascribing motives to the actors.

 

Point stands though, that not all altruistic actions confer upon the individual a procreative advantage, and that people (and animals) often act to their own procreative disadvantage. And it keeps happening so the "virtue" of selflessness must in fact be attributed to the species at large, and not to individual genetic heritages, where it would be bred out.

 

TFS

[niin]

...people also do altruistic things that are inherently dangerous to them, even when it DOESN'T make them feel good.

Ever known a medical resident? Being awake for 48 hours straight is no way to feel good.

He do "feel good". He is also tired, but that don't prevent him from feeling good.

He Knows that if he do not continue with his work, there will be a consequence.

If he felt good about that consequence he would stop working.

[Cedars]

Imagination combined with empathy skill is exactly what allows you to get an idea of what is going on in someone elses head. Sympathy might result from this. Then again, so might jealousy (someone after you mate), anger (he is going to steal from me), and any other emotion. You really nailed it there.

I suspect miscalculations are common with the empathic proccess, but it is a far cry from nothing, and like any skill will improve with use.

 

Empathy might have been caused by the evolution of the brain which governs imagination (or another brain function) but Empathy is not the evolved reason for our motivation/impulse, it is the evolution of the brain which involves imagination that allowed empathy to exist, is where I am comming from.

 

So we both agree that having i child is a selfish act, but for completely different reasons :) I beleive it is the simple act of seeking pleasure, and yours is as stated above (concious reasoning of the parent).

The only way to prove your point of view would be to observe a group of people within the same social and economic structure. The reason it has to be done this way is because of the influence that society, and access to technology has on the number of children we have.

The indications you see across the planet are quite ambigious, and unlikely to be useable to draw reasonable conclusions from :)

 

Access and technology have nothing to do with the evolved reason for the motivation of having children and only supports my point further. When the hunt for resources is lessened by such things as technology, the human reaction is to have less children. The same thing will happen in the places on the globe where childbirth rates are higher (barring cultural differences). You can see it on the farms of America now. The more technology a farmer has (to replace the manual labor needed) the fewer children are born to that farmer. Yet they have more resources to provide the evolutionary mandate of spreading their seeds.

 

Joe is hear because it is pleasureable to make love. Nature requires no other reason. While an individual might be able to override these feelings and abstain, would the population in general? No chance.

 

Joe is here because of human seuxality issues that revolve around glands, chemicals, and their effect on the human male/female. These same chemicals/hormones produce effects on the human besides the desire to have sex. They are the evolved reasons for that aspect, but they are not empathy. My argument with you over this aspect revolved around trying to apply empathy to this subject, and how it falls apart in the evolutionary reasons for our motivation/impulses.

 

I am not denying empathy exists, I just think the skill/ability is a side effect of other evolutionary reasons which are more involved in our motivations and impulses.

[Kayra]

It's a false consciousness argument Karl Marx would be proud of.

 

???

<Sigh> Never read up on the fellow.

Perhaps you could expand in laymen terms for me :)

 

 

You say I can't talk about individual actions and reactions, but then, species do not pass on their genome, only individuals, so I don't see the point in discussing anything BUT individual reactions.

 

Make that statement to any scientist studying the human race, and I bet I know what the response would be :)

The only measure of the masses that is scientifically valid are those actions the majority of the masses would take. Pick any circumstance. Create a situation. Determine the result that the majority would take. That would be the standard response. The job is then to determine which you think caused it, and justify your conclusions. Individual actions must be discarded as statistical "noise" in order to be able to draw any conclusions at all.

 

Remember though, if a large enough number of people or animals act in that particular manner, then they become statistically relevant, and must be included.

I think that those cases you state stand out singularly because they are the exception to the rule.

 

The masses are merely a collection of exceptions to the rules that apply to everyone else. ;)

 

:)

 

 

The argument is a good one, in that its unanswerable.

 

The argument is a good one in that it fits the observable data.

 

"Would you feel bad if you did bad things?" Well, yes... "Would you feel good if you did good things?" Well, yes... "Would you do good things in spite of them making you feel bad, harming you, etc..." Well, maybe... People who deny acting well out of a feeling of guilt are just not conscious of their own feelings.

 

Good point. One I have made repeatedly. Thank you.

 

The argument can't be tested because it is it's own response. That's all well and good, but you can never prove or disprove it, and in the end it doesn't matter.

 

When it comes to human nature (or nature in general) it is pretty much impossible to prove anything. We can, however, point to a preponderance of evidence and postulate why it is so. The closer the postulation mirrors reality points to the likelihood that it is correct.

 

My argument, while self consistent, does not point to itself as support for itself. If it does, I completely missed that and would appreciate you pointing that aspect out to me.

 

My refusal to believe that all actions are fundamentally selfish because I can point to examples is just as valid as your belief that they are because you can refute those examples by ascribing motives to the actors.

 

Except the examples you provide are rare exceptions, and the ones I provide are generic and apply to the majority.

 

Point stands though, that not all altruistic actions confer upon the individual a procreative advantage, and that people (and animals) often act to their own procreative disadvantage. And it keeps happening so the "virtue" of selflessness must in fact be attributed to the species at large, and not to individual genetic heritages, where it would be bred out.

 

TFS

 

Point accepted. As I pointed out though, altruistic actions are just not common enough to be statistically valid. If they were so common, would we make such a big deal out of them? Would mankind survive if that were the case?

 

News flash:.... .. . ....

In a recent fire at a school today, 618 students, 14 officers, 27 firemen, and 62 bystanders died this morning because they raced back into the school to save a trapped child screaming from the rooftop.

[Kayra]

Empathy might have been caused by the evolution of the brain which governs imagination (or another brain function) but Empathy is not the evolved reason for our motivation/impulse, it is the evolution of the brain which involves imagination that allowed empathy to exist, is where I am coming from.

 

Empathy is being found to be hard wired into us. It is not a product of imagination.

 

Access and technology have nothing to do with the evolved reason for the motivation of having children and only supports my point further. When the hunt for resources is lessened by such things as technology, the human reaction is to have less children. The same thing will happen in the places on the globe where childbirth rates are higher (barring cultural differences). You can see it on the farms of America now. The more technology a farmer has (to replace the manual labor needed) the fewer children are born to that farmer. Yet they have more resources to provide the evolutionary mandate of spreading their seeds.

 

 

Give up on the child thing Cedar.

You can not prove anything either way until you remove birth control form the picture.

 

Joe is here because of human seuxality issues that revolve around glands, chemicals, and their effect on the human male/female. These same chemicals/hormones produce effects on the human besides the desire to have sex. They are the evolved reasons for that aspect, but they are not empathy. My argument with you over this aspect revolved around trying to apply empathy to this subject, and how it falls apart in the evolutionary reasons for our motivation/impulses.

 

I already stated (twice I think) that sex is completely unrelated to empathy, and that I mistakenly included it in my justification. Why do you insist on bringing this up?

 

I am not denying empathy exists, I just think the skill/ability is a side effect of other evolutionary reasons which are more involved in our motivations and impulses.

 

Excellent. Looking forward to you making a case for those other evolutionary reasons.

[Kayra]

I can understand that the thought of the human race being driven by pure selfishness is not a very comfortable nor appealing position to take. We truly do not like to think of ourselves as such.

 

I expected (and received) a considerable number of arguments that try to dispel my position, but I have yet to see a valid argument that creates an opposing view.

 

If life is not driven by selfishness, and evolution not driven by procreation, then please post why you think so.

[Cedars]

Excellent. Looking forward to you making a case for those other evolutionary reasons.

 

I can understand that the thought of the human race being driven by pure selfishness is not a very comfortable nor appealing position to take. We truly do not like to think of ourselves as such.

 

I expected (and received) a considerable number of arguments that try to dispel my position, but I have yet to see a valid argument that creates an opposing view.

 

If life is not driven by selfishness, and evolution not driven by procreation, then please post why you think so.

 

I made the case in the first 15 posts. The topic originated in what motivates people to gamble and is was suggested that it be moved, so it was.

 

Evolution is driven by mutation. Procreation is a method of implementing the changes. The mutation can happen before (to the parents genes via enviromental factor) or after procreation (in womb/egg/spawn etc).